The War
Headlines
Movies
Screenshots
Alliance Community
2011: We're Back!

Alliance: The Silent War

Community Forums for Alliance: The Silent War
It is currently Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:53 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 799 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:53 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Bigdaddy wrote:
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
The article mentioned lethality to out to 500 meters... I immediately thought of the m14? Could shoot all the way out to 800 yards. I believe the 7.62x51 NATO is the future.


Huh? 7.62x51 or .308 is not the future. It's been used for years. Since Vietnam..

I mean as a replacement for the .223.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:03 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
Bigdaddy wrote:
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
The article mentioned lethality to out to 500 meters... I immediately thought of the m14? Could shoot all the way out to 800 yards. I believe the 7.62x51 NATO is the future.


Huh? 7.62x51 or .308 is not the future. It's been used for years. Since Vietnam..

I mean as a replacement for the .223.

The 5.56 or .223 actually replaced the 7.62x51 and 30-06 round. Sure we still kinda use the m14 but the 5.56 replaced it as the main round used by our soldiers.

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
From what I can tell, that was a very controversial move, with a lot of people claiming that it was politically motivated. They ditched the m14 because it was too heavy, but there was nothing stopping them from making an m16 that used 7.62.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:40 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
m16 that used 7.62.
That exists, it's called the AR10. It's basically what the M16 was developed from.

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 10:58 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
From what I can tell, that was a very controversial move, with a lot of people claiming that it was politically motivated. They ditched the m14 because it was too heavy, but there was nothing stopping them from making an m16 that used 7.62.

It's because it was a new weapon system that no one really wanted to trust at first. Honestly I'd still use the m14 but the m16 and it's variants are amazing with their versatility.

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:35 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Ive also heard that the m14 was a lot more reliable weapon. It would fire after being put into dust, whereas something like 1/3 of our soldiers complain about their m16s/m4s jamming. The 223 doesn't exactly have the ideal knockdown power. Ive seen things where insurgents hit by it still continued to fight...

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:00 pm 
Offline
Four Star General
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:05 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: New York, NY
What I find most baffling is that we haven't already switched to an AR15 variant that is NOT gas operated. That should instantly increase weapon reliability by a significant margin.

_________________
Alliance Developer, Sox34's not-so-secret identity, & NZG Central Command
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." — Unknown Philosopher


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:28 pm 
Offline
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 72
Location: somewhere
AllianceEric wrote:
What I find most baffling is that we haven't already switched to an AR15 variant that is NOT gas operated. That should instantly increase weapon reliability by a significant margin.

Excuse my ignorance, but what other forms are there to operate a rifle aside from bolt action and gas? I feel dumb asking, but i'd like to know.

_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum...If you want peace, prepare for war."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:51 pm 
Offline
Four Star General
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:05 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: New York, NY
Huh? wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but what other forms are there to operate a rifle aside from bolt action and gas? I feel dumb asking, but i'd like to know.

I was specifically thinking about a piston based solution. Rather than having the gas physically cycle the weapon, as it expands it pushes on a piston (in an enclosed chamber) that actually cycles the weapon. This keeps the dirty gas from flowing directly into the rifle's moving parts and leaving gunk on them.

_________________
Alliance Developer, Sox34's not-so-secret identity, & NZG Central Command
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." — Unknown Philosopher


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 8:58 pm 
Offline
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 72
Location: somewhere
AllianceEric wrote:
Huh? wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but what other forms are there to operate a rifle aside from bolt action and gas? I feel dumb asking, but i'd like to know.

I was specifically thinking about a piston based solution. Rather than having the gas physically cycle the weapon, as it expands it pushes on a piston (in an enclosed chamber) that actually cycles the weapon. This keeps the dirty gas from flowing directly into the rifle's moving parts and leaving gunk on them.

Ohh ook, that makes more sense now. Piston system like the HK 416?

_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum...If you want peace, prepare for war."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:00 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
Ive also heard that the m14 was a lot more reliable weapon. It would fire after being put into dust, whereas something like 1/3 of our soldiers complain about their m16s/m4s jamming. The 223 doesn't exactly have the ideal knockdown power. Ive seen things where insurgents hit by it still continued to fight...


M16's during vietnam (the a1) actually had a lot of problems, but it wasn't the weapon system's fault. The manufactor basically said that there was no reason to clean etc etc so the govt told the soldiers ALSO there was something about them using the wrong powder something I can't exactly remember but it was a huge mess which caused it to jam so much.


AllianceEric wrote:
Huh? wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but what other forms are there to operate a rifle aside from bolt action and gas? I feel dumb asking, but i'd like to know.

I was specifically thinking about a piston based solution. Rather than having the gas physically cycle the weapon, as it expands it pushes on a piston (in an enclosed chamber) that actually cycles the weapon. This keeps the dirty gas from flowing directly into the rifle's moving parts and leaving gunk on them.



I agree Piston based system sounds 100% better. I'm not exactly sure why they haven't but I'm sure it's because they don't feel like replacing thousands and thousands of rifles(money etc).

Whenever I cleaned my weapon I cleaned it until all you could hear was the action and that was only when you pulled the charging handle back all the way and let go. If you slowly pulled the action back you couldn't even hear the metal on metal. Never had a problem until I was shooting behind cover and a casing hit my hand and went back into the ejection port XD (still have the scar on my hand from the casing lol)

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:01 pm 
Offline
Four Star General
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:05 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: New York, NY
Huh? wrote:
AllianceEric wrote:
Huh? wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but what other forms are there to operate a rifle aside from bolt action and gas? I feel dumb asking, but i'd like to know.

I was specifically thinking about a piston based solution. Rather than having the gas physically cycle the weapon, as it expands it pushes on a piston (in an enclosed chamber) that actually cycles the weapon. This keeps the dirty gas from flowing directly into the rifle's moving parts and leaving gunk on them.

Ohh ook, that makes more sense now. Piston system like the HK 416?

Correct.

_________________
Alliance Developer, Sox34's not-so-secret identity, & NZG Central Command
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." — Unknown Philosopher


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:06 pm 
Offline
Four Star General
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 5:05 pm
Posts: 1071
Location: New York, NY
Bigdaddy wrote:
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
Ive also heard that the m14 was a lot more reliable weapon. It would fire after being put into dust, whereas something like 1/3 of our soldiers complain about their m16s/m4s jamming. The 223 doesn't exactly have the ideal knockdown power. Ive seen things where insurgents hit by it still continued to fight...


M16's during vietnam (the a1) actually had a lot of problems, but it wasn't the weapon system's fault. The manufactor basically said that there was no reason to clean etc etc so the govt told the soldiers ALSO there was something about them using the wrong powder something I can't exactly remember but it was a huge mess which caused it to jam so much.

AllianceEric wrote:
Huh? wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but what other forms are there to operate a rifle aside from bolt action and gas? I feel dumb asking, but i'd like to know.

I was specifically thinking about a piston based solution. Rather than having the gas physically cycle the weapon, as it expands it pushes on a piston (in an enclosed chamber) that actually cycles the weapon. This keeps the dirty gas from flowing directly into the rifle's moving parts and leaving gunk on them.


I agree Piston based system sounds 100% better. I'm not exactly sure why they haven't but I'm sure it's because they don't feel like replacing thousands and thousands of rifles(money etc).

Yeah, a lot of the earlier faults were not the rifles fault: having the ammunition changed last minute to one with very shitty and dirty powder, lack of cleaning supplies, telling soldiers it never needed cleaning, etc. However, that they are gas operated doesn't help matters at all.

As for the cost of the switch. I agree with the difficulty of replacing all of them. The problem is that they never stopped buying gas operated ones. Even if you leave the ones in service as-is until they actually need replacement, they should have started buying better new ones a LONG time ago.

_________________
Alliance Developer, Sox34's not-so-secret identity, & NZG Central Command
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur." — Unknown Philosopher


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:52 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Will this difference in realiability be present in some from in Alliance? I have read that weapon jamming will probably not be present but how about things like water? I find it interesting that in most games, your weapon works fine after you spend a couple minutes dunking it in the water. Not even any water dripping off of it when you take it out.. which is rather puzzling imho.

It would make for a neat tactic for fooling people. You go swimming with your m16, drop it somewhere. And when someone comes along they go "hey, free gun" only to get the surprise of their life when they pull the trigger. :mrgreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjMH94PuT_I

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 11:59 pm 
Offline
Four Star General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:14 am
Posts: 472
Location: New York, NY
Pedantic Peter (not to be confused with pedobear) here...

The terms you all are looking for is direct impingement versus gas piston. Gas is involved in both operating mechanisms, it just hits different surfaces.

Gas. You know, like the stuff I'm spewing now ;).

Also, there are a dizzying array of mechanisms for cycling a firearm. Worth a read if you're bored:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic

_________________
http://www.alliancethegame.com/update.php


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:02 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Submachine gun time!
MP-35
Image

MP 3008
Image

PP-19 Bizon
Image

PP-91
Image

PP 2000
Image

K6 Borz
Image

Calico M960
Image

Colt mod 635
Image

Beretta PM 12
Image

Taurus MT9
Image


But how could we forget about LMGs? :)

Stoner 86
Image

Ultimax
Image

HK221
Image

Type 88 (china)
Image

Type 96 (Japan)
Image

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:28 pm 
Offline
Corporal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 72
Location: somewhere
Aren't some of those technically "machine pistols"?

_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum...If you want peace, prepare for war."

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:48 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
Huh? wrote:
Aren't some of those technically "machine pistols"?

Yes and PDW's.

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Hm, I can't say that I know the difference between the two. My ultimate wish is for alliance to have many of these guns that have never been seen before in any game. I believe I remember seeing the colt smg in Clear and Present Danger though now that I think about it.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:20 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:28 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Houston, Texas
#//neostyles.CD wrote:
Hm, I can't say that I know the difference between the two. My ultimate wish is for alliance to have many of these guns that have never been seen before in any game. I believe I remember seeing the colt smg in Clear and Present Danger though now that I think about it.

No you saw a short barrel m4. That more than likely is an ar15 with a 9mm upper.

_________________
-Leader of the DAP
-Head of Transportation
-Guinea Pig for the Entire NZG
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 799 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group